Ringo v. Richardson

Citation53 Mo. 385
PartiesANDREW H. RINGO, Appellant, v. ELIZABETH RICHARDSON, et al., Respondents.
Decision Date31 August 1873
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Ray Court of Common Pleas.

Bannister & Hughes, and Hall & Oliver, for Appellant.

Geo. W. Dunn, for Respondents.

SHERWOOD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Andrew H. Ringo brought suit in the Common Pleas court of Ray county against the heirs of Mathias Teague and others, claiming in his petition, that in August, 1839, one Mathias Teague entered the following described United States Government land, situate in Ray county: The northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of section twenty-two, township 52, of range 28, with money furnished by one Zacheus Routh for that purpose, and with the agreement that said land was to belong to Routh; that Teague accordingly made, executed and delivered a deed to Routh, conveying to him the land, which deed was lost without having been recorded; that Routh took possession of the land at the time of the entry, remained in peaceable possession of the same up to the time of his death, exercising the usual acts of ownership; that Routh died without a will; that plaintiff and his brother bought the land at the administration sale, and received a deed from the administrator, E. A. Lewis, in 1851; that Nelly Routh, the widow of Zacheus Routh, conveyed to plaintiff and his brother her dower interest in the land also in the year 1851; that plaintiff's brother Samuel, and his wife, in 1853, conveyed all their interest in said land to plaintiff; that one of the defendants, Samuel B. Randolph, in 1869, set up a claim to the land as the heir of one Francis M. Randolph, and obtained a decree for title to said land against the heirs of Teague, in the year 1870; that plaintiff was not made a party to that suit; that Samuel Randolph knew that plaintiff was the owner of the land, and had been in peaceable possession thereof, paying taxes, &c. that the decree was falsely and fraudulently obtained; that in February, 1870, after obtaining this decree, Randolph conveyed to defendant, John Bales, who took with full knowledge of plaintiff's title and ownership, and has since taken possession of the land, cutting timber, &c., &c.

The petition prays for special relief, such as plaintiff regarded himself entitled to, and also for general relief.

The answer of defendant admitted that Mathias Teague entered the land, but denied that Routh furnished the money; but alleged, on the contrary, that F. M. Randolph, the father of defendant, Samuel B. Randolph, furnished the purchase money, $50 00, to Teague to enter the land for said Randolph, but Teague entered it in his own name. Defendants denied that Teague ever executed a deed conveying the land to Routh, in accordance with any understanding or otherwise; that the deed never had any existence, and therefore could not be lost or destroyed; that F. M. Randolph had possession of the land from the time of its entry up to the time of his death, claiming it as his own; that Teague recognized Randolph as the owner, and “always expressed a willingness” to convey the land to Randolph, “but never did so.” The residue of the answer is tantamount to a general denial of the other allegations of the petition. A reply was duly filed. On the trial evidence was introduced on the part of the plaintiff, substantially as follows: A deed from Mathias Teague, and wife, to Zacheus Routh, conveying to him the land in controversy, with covenants of warranty, dated, November the 1st, 1841, and duly acknowledged on said day; recorded April 15th, 1872. (This deed was found after suit brought, and placed upon record.) A deed from E. A. Lewis, as administrator of the estate of Zacheus Routh, dated October 8th, 1851, conveying the land aforesaid to Samuel and Andrew H. Ringo, duly acknowledged and recorded. A deed, dated April 3rd, 1851, from Nelly Routh, widow of Zacheus Routh, conveying her dower in said lands to plaintiff Ringo, and his brother Samuel, duly acknowledged and recorded. A deed to plaintiff, dated November 16th, 1853, from Samuel Ringo, (plaintiff's brother) and wife, conveying their interest in the land. This deed was also duly acknowledged and recorded. Receipts for taxes paid on the land by plaintiff, from 1852 up to 1870. A county plat, showing that land in controversy, N. W. S. W. Sect. 22, entered Aug. 9th, 1839, by Mathias Teague, and the forty acres adjoining it on the south, were entered by Zacheus Routh, November 1st, 1833, as well as the forty acres in section twenty-one, immediately west of the last named forty, February 4th, 1834.

The deposition of Mary W. Mosher, the daughter of Zacheus Routh, and the grand-daughter of Mathias Teague; that the latter entered the land in dispute with $50.00, borrowed from Francis M. Randolph, by Routh; that Randolph went off, and returned in very reduced circumstances so much so, that witness' father let him live on the land, and furnished him with provisions, as the latter said he had not a dollar in the world; that Randolph moved off the same Fall, indebted to a Richmond firm $116, which Routh was surety for, and had to pay; that she had seen the deed from Teague, her grandfather, to Routh, her father, in her father's possession, and heard him read it; that Teague, his wife, and her father, went to Richmond to have the deed fixed; that her father said when he returned, that he had had it fixed, and she saw the deed at that time; that her father said it was not necessary to have it recorded; that her father died in 1846, and on his death-bed expressed his intention of returning to Ray county from Platte county, where he then lived, and living on land in dispute the rest of his days; that witness does not remember the description of the land in that deed; that she saw it in possession of her mother, Nelly Routh, shortly after her father's death, and heard her sister read it; that her father had sold out his home place in Ray county on his removal to Platte county, but every Fall he went back, as he said, to pay taxes on the land, and that this deed was a warranty deed.

The deposition of John T. Adams, who states he saw Routh in 1844 with a deed from Teague, acknowledged by the latter before some officer whose name witness has forgotten; witness picked up the deed and read it, and saw it was a deed from Teague to Routh, though he does not know whether it contained a description of the land in controversy, but believes it did; that this deed was shown by Routh in a conversation with Jeremiah Routh, his brother, at witness' father's house, on Crooked River, Ray county, not more than a quarter of a mile from the land in controversy, and this while Zacheus Routh was on a visit to Ray county; and that witness heard him say, he had come down partly on a visit, and partly to pay taxes on the land; that Zacheus Routh and his brother were then talking about trading for the land.

Deposition of Rebecca Adams, wife of the last named witness, grand-daughter of Zacheus Routh, and daughter of John A. Collins, who states, that her father lived on the land she understood to be in controversy; that her grandfather came and offered to pay her father $70 for his improvements if he would move off the land, so he could enter it, as he lived adjoining and could not do so until her father would move; that there were present, when this offer and request was made, witness' great-grandfather, Mathias Teague, and his wife, and witness' father and mother; that her father remarked, that he was going to move any way as he did not like the place; and her grandfather never paid her father anything; that this was about the year 1838; that the improvements were two log houses and 8 or 10 acres cleared, fenced and in cultivation; she understood the deed, which she saw, from her great-grandfather Teague to her grandfather Routh, to be for the land her father lived on, though she could not read it; she testified, that after her father left the land, F. M. Randolph went on it and lived there nearly a year and then left it, and witness does not think any one has lived on it since; that her grandfather Routh or his wife, after they moved to Platte county, came back every Fall to pay taxes on the land, and also to visit relations; that she heard her grandfather say the reason he did not have the deed recorded was, that debts might come against him, though witness did not know what debts he referred to; but understood it was for debts for which her grandfather had become the surety of F. M. Randolph; that her great-grandfather Teague and his wife went to Richmond to make the deed, and after it was made she saw it in the possession of her grandfather Routh, and in the possession of no one else.

W. D. Rice testified to having made out a pro rata statement in 1851, showing what was coming to John Bales, defendant, and Andrew H. Ringo on their claims as creditors against Zacheus Routh's estate from the sale of Routh's lands at administration sale; that he had made out plaintiff's tax list from 1851 to 1865, and the land in dispute was always on the list, and plaintiff had paid taxes on it all the time; and that Bales, defendant, told witness to tell plaintiff that he wanted the matter decided; that if he, defendant, lost the land now, he had his recourse now; but if he, defendant, did not bring suit now, he might lose the recourse on the party he bought of.

D. D. Bullock testified, that before the decree was obtained in the suit of Samuel B. Randolph against Teague's heirs, Bales, defendant, told witness he did not wish plaintiff to lose anything; that he was willing to pay plaintiff; and witness' impression is, that Bales said he would pay $300.

Andrew H. Ringo, plaintiff, testified that the land in controversy was purchased by his brother Samuel and himself at the administration sale of land belonging to Routh's estate, and his recollection was, that defendant Bales was present at the sale; that Bales received a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
145 cases
  • Platt v. Huegel
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1930
    ...Garrett v. Garrett, 171 Mo. 155; Mulock v. Mulock, 156 Mo. 431; Curd v. Brown, 148 Mo. 82; Modrell v. Riddle, 82 Mo. 31; Rings v. Richardson, 53 Mo. 385. (c) If the evidence is susceptible of explanation on any theory other than the existence of a trust, no trust will be declared by the cou......
  • Morrow v. Matthew
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1904
    ... ... Burke , 3 Idaho 333, ... 29 P. 106; Larkins v. Rhodes , 5 Port. 195; Lee ... v. Browder , 51 Ala. 288; Chambers v ... Richardson , 57 Ala. 85; Lehman v. Lewis , 62 ... Ala. 129; Mobile Life Ins. Co. v. Randall , 71 Ala ... 220; Bibb v. Hunter , 79 Ala. 351; Reynolds v ... Standiford , 49 Md. 181; Witts v. Horney , 59 Md ... 584; Kendall v. Mann , 11 Allen 15; Johnson v ... Quarles , 46 Mo. 423; Ringo v. Richardson , 53 ... Mo. 385; Forrester v. Scoville , 51 Mo. 268; ... Kennedy v. Kennedy , 57 Mo. 73; Forrester v ... Moore , 77 Mo. 651; ... ...
  • In re Switzer
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1906
    ... ... 267; Woodbury ... v. Hammond, 54 Me. 332; Deering v. Adams, 34 ... Me. 44; Treadwell v. Burton, 8 Ala. 660; ... Richardson v. Chevalley, 26 La. Ann. 551; In re ... McDermott's Estate, 127 Cal. 450; Lumber Co. v ... Mimms, 49 La. Ann. 1294; Bank v. Barth, 74 ... received in the court below, or dismiss the case for want of ... equity. Darrier v. Darrier, 58 Mo. 222; Ringo v ... Richardson, 53 Mo. 385; Hoff v. Shepard, 53 Mo ... 242. In an equity case, an appellate court may enter such a ... decree as was the ... ...
  • O'Bryan v. Allen
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1888
    ... ... Rogers v. Rogers, 87 Mo. 257; Modrell v ... Riddle, 82 Mo. 31; Forrester v. Moore, 77 Mo ... 651; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 57 Mo. 73; Ringo v ... Richardson, 53 Mo. 385; Forrester v. Scoville, ... 51 Mo. 268; Woodford v. Stephens, 51 Mo. 443; ... Johnson v. Quarles, 46 Mo. 423. And ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT